CONVERSTATION AND PREFERENCE

STRUCTURE

PRAGMATICS/
S2
Spring 2018
Pragmatics is the study of what speakers mean
when they say something, and how hearers under
stand it.
Part of the meaning of a sentence is constant,
and comes from the words used in it and how th
ey are arranged, however, there is more to pra
gmatics than just understanding the context in
which something is said.
Pragmatics also refers to the rules, including
knowing what context you need to provide to th
e listener, the rules that frame language inte
ractions.
CONVESATIONAL ABILITIES
An important part of our pragmatic skill set
Even before we talk , we learn the rules of
conversation.
When parents speak ‘baby-talk’ to their in
fants, they do it in a vey structured way. T
hey use exaggerated ‘pitch changes to attra
ct the infant's interest.
Parents also articulate more carefully than
when they speak with adults or children to h
elp the baby understand which sounds are imp
ortant in their language
They treat the interaction as a rea
l interaction, keeping up a turn ta
king format, even if the baby does
n’t respond
The pause between the parent’s utt
erances is exactly what would be if
they were in conversation with an a
dult.
This aspect of parentese is an impo
rtant part of training children in
holding conversations, and indeed,
children can take turns in a conver
As we grow older, we learn more rules
about the form in a conversation , lik
e a question must followed by an answe
r, longer pauses are demands for more
speech on your part, a hundreds other
unspoken rules of the language

All these are parts of pragmatics

CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS( CA )
CA is they study of talk in interaction ( bo
th verbal , and non verbal in situations of
everyday life).

CA attempts to describe the orderliness, str

ucture, and sequential patterns of interacti
on, whether institutional, or in casual conv
ersations.
CA was developed in late 1960’ and early 19
70’ by sociologist HARVEY SACKS ,and his cl
ose associates EMANUAEL SCHEGLOFF & GAIL JEF
FERSON , inspired by ethno methodology of Go
Today, conversational analysis is an e
stablished method used in sociology, a
nthropology, linguistics, speech-commu
nication and psychology

CA is particularly influential in inte

ractional sociolinguistics, discourse
analysis and discursive psychology.

CA is an approach to the study of soci

al interaction that focuses on practic
es of speaking that recur across a ran
What is a conversation ?
Conversation is a discourse type that
contains several discourse strategies t
hat are of interest to pragmatics

Every piece of conversation consists o

f some acts that represent the speake
r’s intention .

Many metaphors have been made to descr

ibe conversation structure . Conversati
For others, conversations is like tr
affic crossing an intersection, invo
lving lots of alternating movements
without any crashes
The most widely used analytical appr
oach to conversation, is based on an
analogy with the workings of a ma
rket economy.
How ?
The conversation …a market economy
In this market , there is a scarce commodity
called the floor which can be defined as the
right to speak
Having control of this floor at any time is
called a turn
In any situation when control is not fixed i
n advance, any one can attempt to take contr
ol; this is called turn taking
Turn taking operates in accordance with a lo
cal management system that is conventionally
known by members of a social group.
The local management system is set of conven
This system is need most at those poi
nts where there is a possible change
in who has the turn.
Any possible change of turn point is
called a Transition relevance place
TRP

Within any social group, there will b

e features of talk (or absence of tal
k) typically associated with a TRP
 PAUSES, OVERLAPS AND BACKCHANNELS
Most of the times, conversation consists of two
or more participants taking turns, and only one
participant speaking at any time.
Smooth transitions from one speaker to the other
seem to be valued
Transitions with a long silence between turns or
with substantial overlap(both speakers trying to
speak at the same time) are often felt to be awk
ward.
When two people attempt to have a conversati
on and discover that there is no ‘flow’, or
smooth rhythm to their transitions, much mor
There is a sense of distance, an absence of famil
iarity or ease , as in the interaction show in ex
ample (1)
>Mr Strait: what’s your major Dave?
>Dave: English-well I haven’t decided yet
( 3 seconds)
>Mr Strait: so-you want to be a teacher?
>Dave: No-not really- well not if I can help it
(2.5 seconds)
Mr Strait: What-where do you –go ahead
Dave: I mean it’s a-oh sorry // I em….
As shown in this examples, very short pauses ( ma
rked with a dash) are simply hesitations
The first silence ( 3 seconds) is not a
ttributable to either speaker because e
ach has completed a turn.
If one speaker actually turns over the
floor to another and the other does not
speak, then the silence is attributed t
o the second speaker and becomes signif
icant; it’s an attributable silence
Example(2)
Jan:Dave I’m going to the store
(2 seconds)
Jan: Dave?
(3 seconds)
Jan: Dave-is something wrong?
Dave: What? What’s wrong
Jan: never mind
Silence at a TRP is not as problematic f
or the local management system as overlap
If the expectation is that only one perso
n speaks at a time, then overlap can be a
serious problem.
The type of overlap shown in example (1) is simply of a d
ifficult first conversation with an unfamiliar person.
There are other types of overlaps that are interpreted di
fferently.
For many speakers, overlapped talk appears to function li
ke an expression of solidarity or closeness in expressing
similar opinions. But the effect of the overlapping talk
creates a feeling of two voices collaborating as one , in
harmony, see example (3)

> Min: Did you see him in the video?

> Wendy: Yeah– the part of the beach
>Min: Oh my god//he looked so handsome
>wendy: he was so cool
> Min: and the waves// crashing around him
> Wendy Yeah that was really wild

In this example, overlap communicates closeness

See another example (4) :
> Joe: when were in
//power las-
wait CAN I FINISH ?
> Jerry: that’s my point I sai
d--
In this example, overlap communicates compet
ition. The speakers may appear to be having a
discussion but , in fact, they are competing f
or the floor.
By drawing attention to an expectation that he
should be allowed to finish, the speaker in
(4) is appealing to some of the unstated rule
of conversation structure.
Normally , those who wish to get the floor w
ill wait for a possible TRP (transition rele
vance place), and those holding the floor in
a competitive environment will avoid providi
ng TRP’s .
To do so , they must avoid an open pause at
the end of a syntactic unit, the speaker may
fill his pauses with (humm , or uuhhh), whic
h are placed inside , and not at the end of,
the syntactic units. See example (5)
> I wasn’t talking about him—umm his first b
ook that was--- really just like a start and
so—uh isn’t—count really
Another type of floor holding devices is
to indicate that there is a larger struct
ure to your turn by beginning with expres
sions like : there are three points I’
d like to make, first…
Such expressions are used to get the regu
lar exchange of turn process suspended an
d allow one speaker to have an extended t
urn. Within the extended turn , however s
peakers will expect their conversational
partners to indicate that they are listen
ing.
Different ways can be used to do this, li
Backchannels
Caller : If you use your long distance then you’ll
Mary: uhh, uhh
Caller: be interested in the discount I’m talking ab
out because
Mary: yeah
Caller: it can only save you money to switch to a che
aper service
Mary: mmmm
These types of signals (mm, uuhh, yeah) provide feedb
ack to the speaker that the message is being received
, they normally indicate that the listener is followi
ng, and not objecting to what the speaker is saying.
These are what we call BACKCHANNELS
CONVERSATIONAL STYLE
•High
Involvement
Style

•High
Consideratenes
s Style
HIGH INVOLVEMENT STYLE

Some individuals expect that partic

ipation in a conversation will be v
ery active, that speaking rate will
be relatively fast, with almost no
between turns, and with some overla
p or even completion of the other’
s turn.
HIGH CONSIDERATENESS STYLE

It differs substantially from the other

style in which speakers use a slower rat
e, expect longer pauses between turns, d
o not overlap, and avoid interruption or
completion of the other’s turn. This no
n-interrupting, non imposing style is ca
lled the high considerateness style .
When a speaker who typically uses the first style
gets into conversation with a speaker who normally
uses the second style, the talk tends to become on
e-sided.

The active participation style will overwhelm the

other style.

 Neither speaker will necessarily recognize that i

t is the conversational styles that are different,
instead the more rapid-fire speaker may think ,the
slower-paced speaker just doesn’t have much to sa
y, he is shy, and perhaps boring or even stupid. I
n return, he or she is likely to be viewed as nois
y, pushy, domineering, selfish, and even tiresome .
ADJACENCY PAIRS
Pairs of utterances in talk are often m
utually dependent, a most obvious examp
le is that a question predicts an answe
r, and that an answer presupposes a que
stion.
It is possible to state the requirement
s, in a normal conversational sequence,
for many types of utterances, in terms
of what is expected as a response and w
hat certain responses presuppose.
EXAMPLES OF ADJACENCY PAIRS
Expecte
Utteranc
d
e
respons
function
greeting
e
greeting

congratulatio thanks
ns

apology acceptance

Inform acknowledge
Pairs of utterances such as greeting-greeting
, and apology-acceptance are called adjacency
pairs

The mutual dependence of such utterances is u

nderlined by the fact that we can only be abs
olutely sure of the function of the initiatin
g utterance ) the first pair-part) when it is
contextualized with the response it gets ( t
he second pair-part), and vice versa, for exa
mple ‘hello’ in English could be a greeting
, a request to a telephone caller ,or an expr
ession of surprise; Hello, what’s in here?
The utterance of the first part imm
ediately creates an expectation of t
he utterance of a second part of the
same pair.
There are some forms which are used
to fill the slots in adjacency pairs
, but there must always be two parts
to the pair. See examples in the nex
t slide, p 88 in your book
 SECOND
FIRST PART
PART
What’s Nothing
up ? much
Just
How’s it
hanging in
going?
there
How are The
things? usual
How are Can’t
you doing? complain
 Insertion sequences
An insertion sequence is one adjacency pair within
another. See example :
 agent: do you want the early flight? Q1
 client: what time does it arrive ? Q2
 Agent: nine forty-five A2
 Client: Yeah-that’s great A1
The insertion sequence takes the form of Q2-Q2-A2-A1
Although it appears that there is a question (Q2)as
an answer to question 1, the assumption is that on
ce the second part of the insertion sequence is pr
ovided(A2), the second part of the initial questio
n (Q1) will follow (A1)
Adjacency pairs are of different types:

First pair-parts have identical second

pair-parts( hello-hello)

First pair parts expect different

second pair-parts(congratulations-
thanks)
A second pair-part may presuppose a
wide range of first-pair parts( thanks-
offers, apology, informing,
congratulations…)
First pair-parts have various
possibilities and generate further
expectations too( invitation-
reject or accept )
 Native Vs Non-natives use of adja
cency pairs
Scarella&Brunak (1981) compared the use of giv
ing informal invitations between native and no
n-native users of English

It was found that native speakers preface thei

r invitations , for example ( I was wondering,
we are having a party,) while non native speak
ers were too formal or too blunt ( I would lik
e to invite you to a part, I want you to come
to a party)

Similarly , it seems that native speakers usua

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT?

This observation had direct implica

tions for the design of role play a
nd similar activities and linguisti
c elements need to be pre-taught, w
here learners are instructed to beh
ave in ways specified by the activi
ty and where the goal is a simulati
on of ‘real life’ situations.
 PREFERENCE STRUCTURE
Adjacency pairs are not simply contentless noises
in sequences, they represent social actions, and
not all social actions are equal when they occur
as second parts of some pairs.

Basically, a first part that contains a request o

r an offer is made with the expectation that the
second part will be an acceptance, this likelihoo
d is called ‘preference’
The term ‘preference structure’ is used to indi
cate a socially determined structural patte rn
and does not refer to any individual’s mental
First part SECOND PART
PREFERRED DISPREFERRED

Assessment Agree Disagree

Invitation Accept Refuse
Offer Accept Decline
Proposal Agree Disagree
Request Accept Refuse

The general patterns of preferred and dispreferred structure ( S.C.Levinson)

EXAMPLES SEE PAGE 90

SILENCE AS A RESPONSE?...
Silence as a response often leads the
speaker to revise the first part to g
et a second part that is not silence
from the other speaker.
See example :
Sandy: But I’m sure they’ll have g
ood food there
(1.6 seconds)
Sandy: humm , I guess the food is no
t great there
However, silence is an extreme case
, almost risking the impression of
non-participation in the conversati
onal structure.

In expressing dispreffered second-p

arts speakers use hesitations , pau
ses, and prefaces. For example:
Becky: come over for some coffee la
ter
Wally: Oh-eh-hum-but you see-I-I’m
The expression of a refusal can often be accomplis
hed without actually saying ‘no’. Something that
isn’t said nevertheless gets communicated.
In the previous example; after a preface like : uh
h, emm, Oh , ehh , the second speaker produces a k
ind of appreciation to the invitation, then produc
es (you see-) to invoke another understanding , an
d then the account is presented ,that she has to f
inish some work, to explain what prevented her fro
m accepting the invitation.
There is also a meaning conveyed here that the spe
aker’s circumstances are not at his/her control b
ecause of an obligation to finish the work( I am s
upposed) , and once again expecting the inviter’s
understanding by saying (you know)
The effect of dispreffered se
cond parts
More time and language are used than in a preferred.
More language essentially represents more distance b
etween the end of the first part , and the end of th
e second part.
From a pragmatic perspective, the expression of a pr
eferred ( in response to an invitation for example,
clearly represents closeness and quick connection.
From a social perspective, it is easy to see why par
ticipants in a conversation may try to avoid creatin
g contexts for dispreferred second parts.
The best way to avoid dispreferred structures is not
to get to the point where a first part of the pair i
s uttered.
Parting thoughts…

we can say that the amount of t

alk employed to accomplish a part
icular social action in conversat
ion is a pragmatic indicator of t
he relative distance between the
participants.
References
 George Yule(2008). Pragmatics. Oxford Univer
sity Press
 Brown and Yule( 1998) Discourse Analysis. Ca
mbridge University Press.
 George Yule (2006) The Study of Language. Ca
mbridge University Press.
 Your textbook of Pragmatics.